Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]

AbsoluteBeginner said:
Yes doesn't seem to be easy to implement as well, but Gears 5 uses it (VRS2 quality mode) and it brings 5-12% increase in performance, but perhaps its a bit too much fuss for something you can effectively replace with slightly lower resolution (in time when resolution on 99% of the games is not locked and varies, nobody seems to care much anyway).
Click to expand...
VRS and DR aren't mutually exclusive.
With DR your reducing the quality of the whole image, VRS is selective.
So combining them you can gain even more performance with less noticeable IQ loss.

We'll see how much it will get used going forward.

They also expect VRS hardware to be used to do other things, bit like how MSAA was used for checkerboarding etc.

Wouldn't a 5 - 10% saving be pretty much equivalent to 0.5 - 1 TF of performance to be used on other things? Sounds like a useful saving to me.

Edit:
Also especially useful on the XSS where the resolution is lower to begin with, and PS5 for VR.
 
Last edited:
Love_In_Rio said:
Yes, you are right, just that wanted to point out than VRS beneffits are implicit in GE.
Click to expand...
The motivation of VRS is that there are parts of the image that are of low frequency, and shading them in a lower resolution by invoking the pixel shader fewer times won't reduce the image quality to human eyes. It controls pixel shader invocation rate on a fine grained level, and pixel shader happens after the world pipeline, in which geometry objects are discarded.

So really we are talking about different things. If the screen is covered by just two large triangles, but the surface shading is heavy, VRS can still help, but there's no more triangles to cull.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
All a company has to do is make a face plate that doesn't match Sony's design but just happens to have some pegs in the correct positions that the fit into the holes on the PS5. There's nothing that Sony can do to stop that. They can trademark the design used by the PS5, but they can't actually prohibit the sale of something that isn't the same as that design, but just "happens to fit".

Like say side panels that are shaped like Viking Shields with crossed Axes.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...


Sure, try making that argument in the courts.
My product just happened to fit only this particular product from another company and it apparently has no other uses.
 
Strange said:
Sure, try making that argument in the courts.
My product just happened to fit only this particular product from another company and it apparently has no other uses.
Click to expand...

Happens all the time in the US. A manufacturer cannot legally prohibit a consumer from modifying that manufacturer's product in any way they want once they buy it. This includes using non-manufacturer approved parts. For example, the after market automotive parts industry relies on this fact to provide non-OEM parts to consumers. Same goes for OEM PCs, including Apple computers. Hell, Apple can't even legally prohibit consumers from using non-Apple approved parts in their iPhone.

The only thing a manufacturer can attempt to do is void the warranty and deny service for said product after it has been modified. But that that doesn't always hold up in court, especially if a part is considered cosmetic and doesn't affect the part that the consumer is requesting warranty repair for. For example, Mercedes can't deny a warranty claim on a defective powertrain if the consumer had replaced the seats in the car with racing seats.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Happens all the time in the US. A manufacturer cannot legally prohibit a consumer from modifying that manufacturer's product in any way they want once they buy it. This includes using non-manufacturer approved parts. For example, the after market automotive parts industry relies on this fact to provide non-OEM parts to consumers. Same goes for OEM PCs, including Apple computers. Hell, Apple can't even legally prohibit consumers from using non-Apple approved parts in their iPhone.

The only thing a manufacturer can attempt to do is void the warranty and deny service for said product after it has been modified. But that that doesn't always hold up in court, especially if a part is considered cosmetic and doesn't affect the part that the consumer is requesting warranty repair for. For example, Mercedes can't deny a warranty claim on a defective powertrain if the consumer had replaced the seats in the car with racing seats.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

That's because you can't trademark parts that can be easily found in other cars from other brands.

Issues arise when Sony themselves intend to sell faceplates (which they probably are) and this company starts selling that before Sony does. Who wins?
 
Strange said:
That's because you can't trademark parts that can be easily found in other cars from other brands.

Issues arise when Sony themselves intend to sell faceplates (which they probably are) and this company starts selling that before Sony does. Who wins?
Click to expand...

Is car manufacturers in U.S. didn't sell spare parts?

btw someone on arstechinca comment thread, says something creative: simply make panels that looks different but works with PS5. Make it boxy, different latching design (but still compatible), etc.
 
I don't believe this 8MB unified L3 rumor for PS5. We have an actual benchmark from PS5 APU (13f9 Oberon see https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/856185/13F9-OBR-A0) showing 4MB x 2 L3 cache:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1153157871963521030

CIwIE1r.png
 
Love_In_Rio said:
Reading about DX12 mesh shaders and AMD inplementation what I have not clear is if these are computed shaders run by the API (and so would take a good chunck of the CU proccess time) or have their own hardware block as GE seems to have.
Click to expand...

Kugai Calo said:
Don't know about Primitive Shader but Mesh Shader really is compute shader that can export result to the rest of the pipeline, absolutely no assembling of geometry objects is done.
Click to expand...

Mesh shaders and primitive shaders have a compute shader style dispatch but are not distributed by the ACE as I understand it. Where compute shaders are scheduled and dispatched by ACE, primitive and mesh shaders are actually handled within the graphics command pipeline, so at the very least the GCP may be involved.

so you would need some form of dedicated hardware customization to support this. It’s not a software tweak otherwise mesh shaders can be back ported all the way to this gen.

Mesh shaders and primitive shaders generally are responsible for everything geometry related before sending off to rasterization. It’s just in how they do it will differ.

mesh shaders are supported by task shaders which currently AFAIK have no equivalency in primitive shaders. This is the only notable difference that I see, so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Sony Reveal Event: Future of Gaming on PS5 [2020-06-11]
29 30 31
Replies
606
Views
63K
Unknown Soldier
Unknown Soldier
BRiT
  • Sticky
System Reservations on PS4, 4Pro, PS5, XBox One, One S, One X, and Xbox Series X|S [2019-12, 2020-03]
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
29K
LiveGamer
L
H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
47K
Fox5
F
Back
Top